SLR or Not?

[willphelps]

Budget: $600-1000
Features: Macro, 6-8 megapixels, very-low-light conditions

I’m trying to choose between buying a DSLR and a non-SLR semi-pro type. I have a bit of experience using an older digital semi-pro non-SLR in manual mode, but virtually no experience with an SLR/DSLR. But I expect to spend more time than ever with the new camera and will eventually grow to appreciate its advanced features. I’ll be doing a lot of work in low-light and will also require some solid macro capability.

I think I understand the advantages of a traditional SLR – the periscope-like view finder is absolutely “WYSIWYG”. But I’m not so clear on why a DSLR has such a great advantage. As I understand it, a digital camera’s built-in LCD screen gets its data directly from the main sensor, so doesn’t this mechanism provide much of the SLR advantages without the added cost (no parallax, accurate field of view, etc.)? I can see how the LCD screen’s low-res makes it virtually useless for manual focus (no?), and, yes, its color accuracy might not satisfy a hard-core professional, but are these really its only disadvantages? I don’t care much about perfect color, but I suppose manual focus could be an issue at times – would advanced AF systems work perfectly 99.9% (in low-light / macro)?

[hendrin]

Main advantages are:
-Low amount of noise, even towards highest ISO's compared to Digicam's
-Fast shot to shot performance (although this seems to be getting less and less each generation)
-Very quick startup time, and wake up from power saving (not counting Digital Rebel (300D))
-Have to buy additional lenses for more zoom, wide angle, macro, etc depending on what you want to do (this is both an advantage and disadvantage)
-Real viewfinder makes it alot easier to frame, track, etc what you are trying to take a photo of
-Usually wider range of shutter speeds, aperature
-Shallow depth of field

Disadvantages:
-Bigger size & heavier

That's what comes to mind right off the top of my head. Usually in most cases, SLR's are better for take photos in low light conditions (because of higher ISO's and fast lenses). Also, I don't think any AF system is absolutely perfert or else lenses/cameras wouldn't have the option to manual focus. Digital SLR's might do a bit better job, and the AF is usually alot quicker to lock focus but no system is perfect. Hope that helps.

[vjack]

From what I have been able to gather during my own quest to answer the same question you are asking, a dSLR is almost a requirement if you are serious about low-light shooting. Unfortunately, the cost of these things is outrageous! I'm still considering a dSLR, but I am having a hard time justifying the cost.

[Rex914]

Budget: $600-1000
Features: Macro, 6-8 megapixels, very-low-light conditions

I’m trying to choose between buying a DSLR and a non-SLR semi-pro type. I have a bit of experience using an older digital semi-pro non-SLR in manual mode, but virtually no experience with an SLR/DSLR. But I expect to spend more time than ever with the new camera and will eventually grow to appreciate its advanced features. I’ll be doing a lot of work in low-light and will also require some solid macro capability.

I think I understand the advantages of a traditional SLR – the periscope-like view finder is absolutely “WYSIWYG”. But I’m not so clear on why a DSLR has such a great advantage. As I understand it, a digital camera’s built-in LCD screen gets its data directly from the main sensor, so doesn’t this mechanism provide much of the SLR advantages without the added cost (no parallax, accurate field of view, etc.)? I can see how the LCD screen’s low-res makes it virtually useless for manual focus (no?), and, yes, its color accuracy might not satisfy a hard-core professional, but are these really its only disadvantages? I don’t care much about perfect color, but I suppose manual focus could be an issue at times – would advanced AF systems work perfectly 99.9% (in low-light / macro)?

This just screams SLR to me. In fact, this is very close to what I do - low light food photography i.e. taking pictures of food in restaurants. You need an SLR's ability to use wide aperture lenses to be able to take these low light shots. You also need an SLR to be able use ISO 1600/3200 without having noise destroy the picture. In your case, if your focus is limited to what you say, you could easily get away with buying a Rebel XT and a fast macro lens probably for around $1000. You could downgrade the Rebel XT to a Rebel to save about $200, but the XT's advantages are too big to ignore unless you're very strapped to this budget.

[willphelps]

Hendrin,

Thanks for your reply.

Are all the features you itemize a direct result of the single-lens reflex feature? IOW, is it theoreticaly impossible, for instance, to have a non-DSLR camera that has quick startup time? Or are the features you itemized generally available on DSLR cameras and generally not available on non-DSLR cameras?

What I'm really trying to ask is: Since the LCD Screens on all digital cameras (including both DSLR and the others) provide a "through the lens" view of my shot, why must I also have/use a "through the lens" optical viewfinder? IOW: What are the disadvantages of relying completely on the LCD screen to set up a shot?

--Will

[Rex914]

Here is the real scoop on the optical vf vs LCD:

1) All things being equal, it is agreed upon the LCD does give the "true" and entire image.

2) LCD's drain batteries like heck.

3) Which looks better - the real thing (ovf) or a miniature computerized image of the real thing (LCD)?

4) Not all LCD's "gain up" in low light. The ovf is always better in low light.

[hendrin]

There are a number of digicams that are fairly quick. None I know of are quite as instant as the D70, but there close now. The D70 is ready as soon as it is turned on. I think the reason for this is that the digicams have to bring the lens out when it starts up (this is just my opinion/assumption).

The sensor in Digital SLR's are quiet a bit larger, and I guess this partially is due to there larger size of the digital slr's(more room for components). With the sensors being larger, there is a larger area to capture the same amount of information resulting in less noise (grain) in the images. There are a few digicams that are getting better (Fuji F10), but on a good 98% of digicams really have huge amounts of noise over ISO 200 because there using very small sensors compared to a Digital SLR.

None of the digicams have an optical viewfinder that you are looking through the lense. This is something only digital SLR's have so far. Most of the times your looking through a bit above and to the left or right of the actual lens on a digicam.

Shallow depth of field is something exclusive to Digital SLR's.

On a digital SLR (I believe there is one in development that has a transmissive(sp?) mirror that will give you a live view on the LCD, forget which brand/make) you don't have a live view. You frame your shot with the optical viewfinder, take the picture and then look at the result on the LCD. This is better in my opinion, as it makes it easier to track things and in low light conditions it is much, much, much easier to see what your trying to take a photo of. You can't use the LCD to frame up a shot on a digital SLR, the LCD is only for viewing/reviewing your shots you have taken. There is no liveview like there is on digicams. You take the photo through the optical viewfinder, and view the results afterwards on the LCD.

Hope that helps.

[willphelps]

...a dSLR is almost a requirement if you are serious about low-light shooting. Unfortunately, the cost of these things is outrageous! I'm still considering a dSLR, but I am having a hard time justifying the cost.

Yes, the cost is sky-high! I'm hesitant to spend the extra $400 unless I know for sure it will make a "real-world" difference for the work at hand.

[willphelps]

This just screams SLR to me. In fact, this is very close to what I do - low light food photography i.e. taking pictures of food in restaurants. You need an SLR's ability to use wide aperture lenses to be able to take these low light shots. You also need an SLR to be able use ISO 1600/3200 without having noise destroy the picture. In your case, if your focus is limited to what you say, you could easily get away with buying a Rebel XT and a fast macro lens probably for around $1000. You could downgrade the Rebel XT to a Rebel to save about $200, but the XT's advantages are too big to ignore unless you're very strapped to this budget.

I understand that a wide aperture lens will expose the "film" to more light (yes?) Now I must allow (more of) my ignorance to show here -- when I said very-low-light conditions, I didn't mean that the addition of artificial light was not an option. Yes, it WOULD be nice to shoot beautiful photos of subjects bathed in natural moonlight (or an elegant meal bathed in candlelight?), and I do have some interest in that, but my high-priority needs are more utilitarian. While my "real" profession is software development, I also write books and articles about military vehicles (e.g. tanks in museums) and many of the photos are taken inside the vehicle (the only light comes from outside through the open hatches). Few of these shots are taken at distances greater than 2 feet and some details are shot at distances as close as 6" (hence the need for macro capability). My old Epson (stolen last year!) prosumer digital worked well for everything except the interior shots because the built-in flash was too bright (I guess) and most shots were overexposed. I guess it would have worked well enough if the flash was simply not so bright. It also had a hot-shoe -- I had planned to get an external flash in hope that that would fix the problem, but never got to it before the camera was stolen. It's built-in macro capability, however, was just fine (given proper light).

The Rebel XT is indeed the DSLR I was considering. I think I read that the included lens has some limited macro capability -- would that work OK for my needs?

[willphelps]

Here is the real scoop on the optical vf vs LCD:
2) LCD's drain batteries like heck.


Yes, I remember that as a problem with my old camera -- good point

Here is the real scoop on the optical vf vs LCD:
4) Not all LCD's "gain up" in low light. The ovf is always better in low light.

Interesting! So if I do get a camera with an "electronic viewfinder" (to set up shots using the LCD screen) I should make sure that the LCD accurately reflects the aperture setting?

[willphelps]

The sensor in Digital SLR's are quiet a bit larger, and I guess this partially is due to there larger size of the digital slr's(more room for components). With the sensors being larger, there is a larger area to capture the same amount of information resulting in less noise (grain) in the images. There are a few digicams that are getting better (Fuji F10), but on a good 98% of digicams really have huge amounts of noise over ISO 200 because there using very small sensors compared to a Digital SLR.
I see. And the noise is worse when lighting conditions are not optimal, right?

None of the digicams have an optical viewfinder that you are looking through the lense. This is something only digital SLR's have so far. Most of the times your looking through a bit above and to the left or right of the actual lens on a digicam.
Yes, the parallax problems etc. -- I understand

On a digital SLR (I believe there is one in development that has a transmissive(sp?) mirror that will give you a live view on the LCD, forget which brand/make) you don't have a live view. You frame your shot with the optical viewfinder, take the picture and then look at the result on the LCD. This is better in my opinion, as it makes it easier to track things and in low light conditions it is much, much, much easier to see what your trying to take a photo of. You can't use the LCD to frame up a shot on a digital SLR, the LCD is only for viewing/reviewing your shots you have taken. There is no liveview like there is on digicams. You take the photo through the optical viewfinder, and view the results afterwards on the LCD.
I'm suprised to learn that! I guess simply allowing the user to push a button to flip the mirror up out of the way so the CCD/sensor could monitor the set up would effectively disable the AF -- ?

I should mention that I wear glasses. This may partially account for some bias towards setting up a shot with the LCD screen (don't have to keep taking the glasses off, puting them on, taking them off....) It's also handy to hold the camera up over the heads of a chearing crowd and take a photo without doing so using blind trial and error. But I admit that these are minor issues and I would eventually get used to using the OVF.

[g0tr00t]

Whew, tough question. If you can make money to have the DSLR pay for itself, then do it.

Going the DSLR route is very expensive. Its a whole system you are buying into. You should by the body with this thought in mind, "I am buying the XXXXX camera today. I will buying lenses that may cost as much or more than the body itself because when I get the upgraded body, I will already have primo lenses." In a few months or a couple of years, you will probably sell the body for a lot less than what you paid. You should try stay away from cheap lenses. 2.8 is my limit.

When I bought my first DSLR, I bought a 50 1.8 lens to start. Then I wanted to go wide so I bought a 15mm - 2.8, then a 28-75 2.8, then a 80-200 2.8 and so on. Then I needed an external flash. Add a sturdy tripod to hold the weight of a DSLR and an 80-200 2.8, remote control, batteries, etc...

I am not trying to discourage you or anyone. Currently I have 3 DSLR's and easily blew over 12k in the past 2 years in the whole "system". They have all paid for themselves though.

What do I carry now? A P200, lighter, easier and less intrusive.

Prior to me going the DSLR route, I had a Sony 707 & 717. Once I generated a client base that required lower light shooting, 20x30's and cleaner HIGH ISO's....I took the plunge.

This is just my opinion. Others will say different. The rule I live by now is if it will not make me money or pay for itself, I won't buy it. :)

Good luck!

[hendrin]

Yes, worse lighting conditions can creatre more noise in certain areas. Although, I have found on DSLR's it isn't nearly as bad.

The kit lens I believe has a 0.5m focus distance...meaning you need to be about half a metre from your subject. If you need to be closer than that, you will also have to invest into a macro lens.

You would also want to look at a Speedlite flash with a defuser(sp?), so that you don't get overblown highlights as easily. A monopod would also be a good thing to consider.

Honestly, if you have the money get a Digital SLR, it will likely last you longer and give you alot better results in lower light conditions. The macro on digicams is fantastic though, and I find the Olympus 8080/Pro 1/G6/8800 are great cameras but you will find that you may reach the limits of these cameras that you would wish you have. Noise, and better focus in low light is two of the things that bugged me. Just make sure to consider that you will likely spend twice as much on a DSLR after getting everything you need.

I've have own/owned a 300D(sold)/350XT/FZ5/A510, and I've definitely find that in most cases I will grab the smaller camera (fz5), unless it is work/business then I grab the 300D/350XT because I can shoot things and get a bit better results (I shoot alot of things that I want to have a very shallow depth of field). For some reason I am now considering the Olympus 8080 and Canon G6. The lens on them are outstanding(cost you a grand or more for a digital slr lens of the same) and you can easily shoot ISO under 200 with fine results.

Also, you can work with prosumer digicams and get good results. I know a gentlemen that uses a few tricks with a Nikon 5700 that takes shots in a nightclub that almost look better than another gentlemens D70.

My opinion would be to get a Olympus 8080 or a G6. Since it doesn't seem you will use zoom alot, the very fast lens at the widest will allow you to shoot ISO 80 with very little noise and a good amount of megapixels. Just make sure it has a hotshoe for flash. I find I don't take out my Digital SLR because of size, although the 8080 is up there weight wise with Digital SLR's.

As the previous poster said...if you want to invest in a system go Digital SLR. If not then go with a prosumer digicam. I would also highly recommend Neat Image or Noise Ninja. You won;'t believe the job it does. I even sometimes run some of my 1600 ISO 350XT shots through it to get rid of the noise that is there. Also, as he said, the lenses will cost as much or more than the body. For instance the 90mm F/2.8 macro lens from Tamron for Canon Mount is $600 bucks. The 350XT body only is $912. Also, the kit lens isn't great with the Canon 350XT, although I find the Nikon ones a bit better quality and picture wise.

[g0tr00t]

I agree with hendrin. hendrin thanks for your input, I am going to check out the other cameras you mentioned. I have friends that keep bugging me about wanting to buy a 350XT/D70.

I always try to dissuade them because I know 2 things about them right off the bat:
1. They will ALWAYS keep in Auto mode.
2. They will NOT want to clean the CCD/CMOS sensor.

I know that cleaning the sensor is not a big deal, but if that shutter curtain trips. BAM there goes half the price of your camera for repairs. Ok....maybe not half, but you get what I mean four to five hundred dollars I have read to get it fixed.

I also agree about the noise reducing software. Neat Image or Noise Ninja. Worth MORE than the price they charge....

Thanks hendrin.

[ccc3]

More information

--> Nikon D70 Digital Camera (http://nikoncamerareview.blogspot.com/2005/04/nicon-d70-review-class-by-itself.html/)

[willphelps]

First – thank you all for spending the time to help with my many questions! You’ve cleared up some basic technical misunderstandings that I had and forced me to more thoroughly evaluate and prioritize my needs (and budget!)

I’ve decided to go with the Olympus C-7070 Wide Zoom. This one is similar to its big brother, the 8080 that hendrin suggested, but it has a different (7 megapixel) CCD and it’s about 20% less expensive. I’ve read quite a bit about the newer Sony 8 megapixel CCD in the 8080 et al. Everyone seems to agree that it produces (relatively) high amounts of noise (while otherwise excellent). I get the general impression that the quality of the 7070 photos might actually be as good despite the lower pixel count (without having to do a lot of post processing with Noise Ninja or whatever). It also lacks the 8080’s excellent EVF, but I think I can live without it given my budget and needs.

I’m guessing that there is indeed a d-SLR somewhere in my future, but I still don’t have a feel for how soon that will be. In the meanwhile, the 7070 costs about the same as a good SLR lens and its manual mode will help me better prepare for that transition. Besides, it may continue to serve as my point-n-shoot even after I later buy the d-SLR.